complaint - Center for Food Safety

Case 3:16-cv-00068 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 31

4

Adam Keats (CSB No. 191157) Center for Food Safety 303 Sacramento Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 826-2770 / F: (415) 826-0507 Email: [email protected]

5

Counsel for Plaintiffs

1 2 3

6 7

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

JEFF ANDERSON, BRET ADEE, DAVID HACKENBERG, POLLINATOR STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL, LUCAS CRISWELL, GAIL FULLER, AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, and PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK OF NORTH AMERICA, Plaintiffs, v.

15 16 17 18 19

GINA MCCARTHY, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendants.

) Case No. 3:16-cv-68 ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 3:16-CV-68 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:16-cv-00068 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 31 INTRODUCTION

1 1.

2

This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs challenge the

3

actions and inactions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator

4

(collectively, EPA or the Agency) that have allowed the ongoing sale and use of unregistered

5

pesticide products in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act

6

(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq. and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et

7

seq.

8 9

2.

EPA has allowed millions of pounds of crop seeds coated with the active

insecticidal ingredients: acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, and/or

10

thiamethoxam (hereinafter “neonicotinoids”) to be planted annually on more than 150 million

11

acres nationwide. Approximately 95% of the land area in the United States that has been treated

12

with neonicotinoid insecticides has been treated via planting these pesticidal coated seeds. The

13

agency has allowed this to occur without requiring the seeds’ registration under FIFRA or

14

mandatory or enforceable labeling of the seeds, and without adequate assessments of their risks.

15

EPA’s actions and inactions have caused both acute honey bee kills and chronic effects leading

16

to excess bee colony mortality, excess bird mortality, nationwide water and soil contamination,

17

and other environmental and economic harms, thereby severely damaging Plaintiff beekeepers’

18

businesses, also damaging the land and welfare of Plaintiff farmers, and damaging the interests

19

of the Plaintiff nonprofit groups.

20

3.

EPA has approved several other non-neonicotinoid systemic seed coating

21

insecticides and appears poised to approve additional coating products. They present the same

22

damage to Plaintiffs and also are subject to the Claims herein. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23 24

4.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28

25

U.S.C. § 1346 (United States as defendant), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 (declaratory relief), 5 U.S.C.

26

§ 702 (APA), and 7 U.S.C. § 136n(a) (FIFRA).

27 28

5.

Jurisdiction also lies in the District Court under FIFRA’s judicial review

provision, 7 U.S.C. § 136n(a), which provides:

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-68 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PAGE 1

Case 3:16-cv-00068 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 3 of 31 District court review.

1

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the refusal of the Administrator to cancel or suspend a registration or to change a classification not following a hearing and other final actions of the Administrator not committed to the discretion of the Administrator by law are judicially reviewable by the district courts of the United States.

2 3 4 5

6.

The claims in this Complaint involve “other final actions” of the Administrator

6

not committed to her discretion. None of the actions challenged herein followed a public hearing,

7

a Federal Register notice, or a petition. EPA acted ultra vires and illegally granted exemptions

8

from FIFRA registration for new pesticidal products and took other actions that are reviewable in

9

the District Court. Thus, jurisdiction lies properly in the District Court. 7 U.S.C. § 136n(a).

10 11 12

7.

An actual controversy exists between the parties within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.

§ 2201 (declaratory judgment). 8.

Venue properly lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C) because

13

one or more Plaintiffs reside in this district, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B), because a

14

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part

15

of property that is the subject of the action is situated, in this district. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

16 17

9.

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c) and (d), assignment of this action is appropriate in

18

the San Francisco or Oakland Divisions because one or more Plaintiffs reside in those locations.

19

PARTIES

20 21

Plaintiffs 10.

Plaintiffs are nationally-representative beekeepers, farmers and public interest

22

organizations harmed by EPA’s actions and inactions herein. They are addressed in those

23

groupings.

24

Beekeeper Plaintiffs

25

11.

Plaintiff Jeff Anderson has been the owner of California Minnesota Honey

26

Farms for nineteen years. It is a migratory beekeeping operation based in Eagle Bend;

27

Minnesota; and Oakdale, California. In addition to Mr. Anderson, the business employs one

28

full-time employee, as well as three seasonal employees. He has been a commercial beekeeper


PAGE 2

Case 3:16-cv-00068 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 4 of 31 1

since 1976. Mr. Anderson is a member of the Minnesota Honey Producers Association, the

2

California State Beekeepers Association, the American Honey Producers Association, the

3

National Honey Bee Advisory Board, and the Pollinator Stewardship Council. Since about

4

2004-05, his percentage of hives lost each year has increased dramatically. In 2012, for example,

5

he had 3,150 hives in April, but by February 2013, he was down to just 998 hives, meaning he

6

lost almost 70% of hives that year. Not only is Mr. Anderson losing hives at rates that are

7

unprecedented, but remaining hives are far less robust. It is plain from recent years that he is

8

getting significant summer mortality—a time when bee populations should be healthy due to

9

warm weather, long days, and food abundance—from the dominant Minnesota crops: corn and

10

soybeans. It is virtually impossible for honey bees to avoid these crops in central Minnesota;

11

nearly all of them are seed-treated with a combination of two neonicotinoid pesticides,

12

clothianidin and thiamethoxam. There are other consequences of this hive health pattern which

13

adversely affect his business and livelihood. First, sick or poorly-populated hives cannot produce

14

much honey. This is apparent when observing his annual honey production records. Prior to

15

2005, he would expect to harvest an average eighty pounds of honey per live hive annually. In

16

recent seasons, Mr. Anderson’s hives have averaged only about forty pounds of honey. His

17

income has drastically suffered as a result and his expenses to keep his remaining hives alive

18

have dramatically increased. The workload and personal stress are intense. His experience and

19

observations are that the exempted neonicotinoid seed coatings, toxic dust, and other

20

contamination from them have played a major role. Test results for some incidents confirm this.

21

12.

Plaintiff Bret Adee is a resident of Bruce, South Dakota. He is a third-generation

22

commercial beekeeper and a co-owner of Adee Honey Farms. Founded in 1957, Adee Honey

23

Farms is the nation’s largest beekeeping operation. It manages some 90,000 honey bee colonies

24

and has about fifty full-time employees. Its operations have been harmed over several years by

25

the neonicotinoid seed coatings. The colonies, in many cases, cannot be placed so that the

26

free-ranging bees will be able to avoid contaminated crops, dust, soil, marginal vegetation, and

27

water that results from the seed coatings, which are overused. Adee Honey Farms has

28

experienced abnormally high incidences of hive failure in recent years. Prior to 2005, they would


PAGE 3


expect to lose between 3-8% of their colonies over the winter. Now, they consider it a good year

2

if they lose only 20%. In 2012, for example, they lost 42% of their hives over winter, but by the

3

time they came around to pollinate almonds in the early spring, their losses were at 55%. For the

4

summer of 2015, the Adees had a massive exposure to clothianidin dust-off that resulted in an

5

estimated 10,000 severely weakened honey bee colonies. The results to the company include lost

6

income, increased expenses and work overload, and emotional distress from seeing their animals

7

killed or weakened. Mr. Adee and his family fear for the future of their business—and

8

commercial beekeeping in general—if the current overuse of neonicotinoids and other pesticides

9

continues. Mr. Adee is the President of the Pollinator Stewardship Council and co-Chair of the

10

National Honey Bee Advisory Board. He also is a member of the American Honey Producers

11

Association, the South Dakota Beekeepers Association, and the California State Beekeepers

12

Association.

13

13.

Plaintiff David Hackenberg is a commercial beekeeper residing in Lewisburg,

14

Pennsylvania. He has been keeping bees for fifty-two years, through his family business

15

Hackenberg Apiaries. His experience includes serving twelve years on the National Honey

16

Board, has served as President of the American Beekeeping Federation, and as Chair and

17

co-Chair of the National Honey Bee Advisory Board. The ongoing effects of excessive

18

overwintering mortality and other excess losses of honey bees have damaged his operation. In

19

2006, he saw huge losses and was the first beekeeper known to suffer what was described by

20

scientists as Colony Collapse Disorder. These disappearances coincided with the exempted

21

neonicotinoid pesticidal seeds coming on the market in large numbers. This damage at least

22

partly resulted from the use of neonicotinoid seed coatings in row crops nationwide. This is

23

compounded by the lack of labels on the seed bags adequate to inform the crop farmers how to

24

avoid harm to bees, and the lack of any enforcement when bees are harmed by these seed

25

coating. Mr. Hackenberg has about 2,000 hives now. His annual losses have run 75-80%, or with

26

continual protein feeding, they can be held closer to 60% losses, but both these levels are

27

excessive. The economic damage to his business, increased expenses and work demand, and

28

personal stress from seeing huge numbers of his bees die have all directly harmed him. His


PAGE 4


experience and direct observations are that the seed coatings, dust, and other contamination from

2

them have played a major role.

3

14.

Plaintiff Pollinator Stewardship Council (PSC) is a nonprofit organization

4

incorporated in Kansas in 2012. It brings this action on behalf of itself and its members. The

5

mission of PSC is to defend managed and native pollinators vital to a sustainable and affordable

6

food supply from the adverse impacts of pesticides. As pollination is required for one-third of the

7

nation’s food supply, PSC accomplishes it mission by: (1) ensuring that state agencies and EPA

8

enforce laws to protect pollinators from pesticides; (2) providing advocacy, guidance, and tools

9

for beekeepers to defend their bees from the detrimental effects of pesticides; and (3) raising

10

awareness about the adverse impacts of pesticides on pollinators. PSC has previously stated its

11

position in opposition to the “treated article” exemption being applied to neonicotinoid-coated

12

seeds because it leads to excessive and unnecessary use of these insecticides. Beekeepers that

13

PSC represents typically cannot escape many harmful effects of this overuse, nor will EPA or the

14

state agencies enforce against misapplication of the exempted seed coatings, even when major

15

bee kills result. Additionally, the losses inflicted on native pollinators, which lack any

16

management, in many cases may be more severe than the damage to managed pollinators. On the

17

whole, the damages resulting from the exemption EPA has given to the pesticidal coated seeds

18

are unacceptable to PSC.

19

Farmer Plaintiffs

20

15.

Plaintiff Lucas Criswell resides near Lewisburg, in central Pennsylvania. He

21

farms about 1,800 acres total of mostly corn, soybeans, and small grains. He has been doing this

22

for eighteen years, and is familiar with the seed choices for these crops and the effects of using

23

different seeds as well as the effects of neonicotinoid coatings. He is very concerned about the

24

non-availability of uncoated corn seeds of the high-quality hybrid varieties. He also is concerned

25

because he has seen that the exempted neonicotinoid-coated seeds are used as a form of

26

“insurance,” when in most situations farmers do not need coated seeds. As a result of their

27

overuse, he has observed harm to beneficial insects and the overall health of the soil. In the case

28

of soybeans, Mr. Criswell planted coated seeds for several years and then quit. Unlike corn, there


PAGE 5


are many good uncoated soybean varieties available from seed dealers. When he switched, he

2

saw no decrease in overall average yields or profitability from his soybean acreage. He switched

3

because it was clear that the coated seeds he used in the past were causing an increase in slugs in

4

the fields, a harmful and hard-to-control crop pest. There were slug outbreaks because the

5

neonicotinoid killed beetles that kept the slugs under control. Mr. Criswell also quit because he

6

was concerned the unnecessary overuse of the chemicals violated Integrated Pest Management,

7

an important principle for his farming. He switched away from neonicotinoid-coated corn seeds

8

more recently, but it is challenging due to their near complete domination of the available corn

9

seed market. Mr. Criswell is concerned that too many farmers, including him at times, have been

10

using them unnecessarily and paying unnecessary costs for the pesticidal coating. He is

11

concerned that the overall effect harms the soil and farmers themselves in the long run.

12

16.

Plaintiff Gail Fuller is a farmer residing near Emporia, Kansas. He farms about

13

1,000 acres of mixed grains, including sorghum, corn, barley, soybeans, and wheat. He regularly

14

used neonicotinoid-coated seeds in the past on some of his crops. He has switched to non-coated

15

seeds for all the crops where it was feasible based on seed availability. Mr. Fuller is an active

16

proponent for soil health and he has noticed that the neonicotinoids can damage soil health and

17

beneficial insects. He is concerned that he used these chemicals unnecessarily as that is not

18

consistent with good soil health or good farming. He is concerned about how the exempted

19

neonicotinoids appear to put monarch butterflies, honey bees, and other beneficial insects at risk.

20

Since cutting back on coated seeds, he has observed more biologically diverse and sustainable

21

ecosystems on and around his farmland, without reducing his typical yields.

22

Public Interest Organization Plaintiffs

23

17.

Plaintiff American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is a national, nonprofit

24

membership organization, headquartered in The Plains, Virginia, dedicated to conserving native

25

birds and their habitat throughout the Americas. It brings this action on behalf of itself and its

26

members. With more than 10,000 members nationwide, ABC works to innovate and build on

27

sound science to halt extinctions, protect habitats, eliminate threats, and build capacity for bird

28

conservation. ABC has had a long-standing program to address the significant threat that


PAGE 6


pesticides pose to birds. It works to cancel or restrict the registrations of the most dangerous

2

products, to improve the evaluation and monitoring of pesticides and their effects on birds, to

3

spearhead scientific research, and to engage the public in protecting birds and other wildlife. The

4

2013 ABC report, The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds, concluded

5

that neonicotinoid-coated seeds are lethal to birds and to the aquatic biological diversity upon

6

which they depend. The nation’s birds, and ABC’s members, are directly and indirectly harmed

7

by the neonicotinoid seed coating chemicals that are blanketing croplands, contaminating

8

watersheds, and poisoning birds, bees, butterflies, and other organisms. ABC has advocated for

9

more than three years to EPA and other federal agencies to curb the overuse of coated seeds.

10

ABC also has urged the Agency to eliminate the coated seeds’ exemption from registration as

11

pesticides under FIFRA.

12

18.

Plaintiff Center for Food Safety (CFS) is a Washington, D.C.-based, public

13

interest, nonprofit membership organization with offices in San Francisco, CA; Portland, OR;

14

Honolulu, HI; and Washington, D.C. It brings this action on behalf of itself and its members.

15

CFS has sought to ameliorate the adverse impacts of industrial farming and food production

16

systems on human health, animal welfare, and the environment. CFS has over 730,000 members

17

nationwide. CFS seeks to protect human health and the environment by advocating for thorough,

18

science-based safety testing of new agricultural products prior to any marketing and cultivation

19

of crops in a manner that minimizes negative impacts such as increased use of pesticides and

20

evolution of resistant pests and weeds. A foundational part of CFS’s mission is to further the

21

public’s and CFS’s members’ fundamental right to know what is in their food and food

22

production methods and technologies.

23

19.

Plaintiff Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA) is an Oakland,

24

California-based, nonprofit corporation that serves as an independent regional center of Pesticide

25

Action Network International, a coalition of public interest organizations in more than ninety

26

countries. It brings this action on behalf of itself and its members, particularly small-scale

27

farmers, beekeepers, farmworkers, and indigenous members. For nearly thirty years, PANNA

28

has worked to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with healthier, ecologically sound pest


PAGE 7


management across the United States and around the world. PANNA provides scientific

2

expertise, public education and access to pesticide data and analysis, and policy development and

3

coalition support to more than 100 affiliated organizations in North America. PANNA has more

4

than 125,000 members across the United States. PANNA’s members live, work, farm, and

5

recreate in areas of the country where pesticides such as the neonicotinoid insecticides are

6

applied, and in which the pesticides and contaminated dust drift and transport occurs, and thus

7

have a strong interest in ensuring that EPA protect public health and the environment from this

8

contamination. PANNA’s members are highly concerned by the effects of the unregulated

9

neonicotinoid-coated seeds on honey bees, bumble bees, butterflies, beneficial invertebrates,

10

wild pollinators, water, aquatic invertebrates, food chains, ecosystem sustainability generally,

11

and ultimately on humans via food and water consumption. The lack of enforceable labeling on

12

these pesticidal seeds, and their prophylactic overuse, violate bedrock principles PANNA seeks

13

to protect as far as only using pesticides as a last resort, and then only when they have strong and

14

clear warnings and enforceable use directions. PANNA has urged EPA to eliminate the coated

15

seeds’ exemption from registration as pesticides. PANNA has also urged EPA (as well as the

16

United States Department of Agriculture and Department of Justice) to address issues around the

17

lack of fairness, transparency, and farmer choice in the seed marketplace.

18

Defendants

19

20.

Defendant Gina McCarthy is the Administrator of EPA and is being sued in her

20

official capacity. In her role as the EPA Administrator, Administrator McCarthy oversees EPA’s

21

implementation of FIFRA.

22

Defendant United States Environmental Protection Agency is the agency of the United

23

States Government with primary responsibility for implementing FIFRA. EPA has allowed the

24

ongoing sale and use of unregistered pesticide products in the form of neonicotinoid-coated

25

seeds and took other actions described herein.

26 27 28


PAGE 8

Case 3:16-cv-00068 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 10 of 31 STATUTORY BACKGROUND

1 2 3

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 21.

FIFRA governs pesticide commercialization and application in the United States.

4

The definition of “pesticide” is (in pertinent part), a “mixture of substances intended for

5

preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(u)(1). FIFRA makes it

6

unlawful, with a few minor exceptions, for any “person in any State [to] distribute or sell to any

7

person any pesticide that is not registered” under the Act. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a); see also 7 U.S.C.

8

§ 136j(a)(1). FIFRA prohibits EPA from registering a pesticide if its use would have

9

“unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” 7 U.S.C § 136a(c)(5).

10 11

22.

The Administrator is required to provide public notice and comment opportunities

for registrations under 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(4):

12 Notice of application.

13

The Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register, promptly after receipt of the statement and other data required pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), a notice of each application for registration of any pesticide if it contains any new active ingredient or if it would entail a changed use pattern. The notice shall provide for a period of 30 days in which any Federal agency or any other interested person may comment.

14 15 16 17 18

23.

EPA’s FIFRA-implementing regulations also contain procedural requirements

19

for product registration, including, but not limited to, requiring publication of two classes of

20

notices in the Federal Register. Under 40 C.F.R. § 152.102:

21

The Agency will issue in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of each application for registration of a product that contains a new active ingredient or that proposes a new use. After registration of the product, the Agency will issue in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. The notice of issuance will describe the new chemical or new use, summarize the Agency’s regulatory conclusions, list missing data and the conditions for their submission, and respond to comments received on the notice of application.

22 23 24 25 26

24.

The culmination of the registration process, if followed, is EPA’s official

27

approval of a label for the pesticidal product, including use directions and appropriate warnings

28

on safety and environmental risks. It is a violation of FIFRA for any person to sell or distribute a


PAGE 9


“misbranded” pesticidal product. 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(E). FIFRA is explicit in requiring EPA to

2

find a product misbranded, and may not be used, if:

3

(F) the labeling accompanying it does not contain directions for use which are necessary for effecting the purpose for which the product is intended and if complied with, together with any requirements imposed under section 136a(d) of this title, are adequate to protect health and the environment; [or]

4 5 6

(G) the label does not contain a warning or caution statement which may be necessary and if complied with, together with any requirements imposed under section 136a(d) of this title, is adequate to protect health and the environment.

7 8 9 10

7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1). 25.

With regard to exemptions from FIFRA, the “Administrator may exempt from the

11

requirements of this subchapter by regulation any pesticide which the Administrator determines

12

either (1) to be adequately regulated by another Federal agency, or (2) to be of a character which

13

is unnecessary to be subject to this subchapter in order to carry out the purposes of this

14

subchapter.” 7 U.S.C. § 136w(b).

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26.

EPA’s implementing regulation for such exemptions, at 40 CFR § 152.25,

provides (in pertinent part): Exemptions for pesticides of a character not requiring FIFRA regulation. The pesticides or classes of pesticides listed in this section have been determined to be of a character not requiring regulation under FIFRA, and are therefore exempt from all provisions of FIFRA when intended for use, and used, only in the manner specified. (a) Treated articles or substances. An article or substance treated with, or containing, a pesticide to protect the article or substance itself (for example, paint treated with a pesticide to protect the paint coating, or wood products treated to protect the wood against insect or fungus infestation), if the pesticide is registered for such use. The “treated article” exemption regulation does not address pesticidal coated seeds of any kind.

26 27 28


PAGE 10

Case 3:16-cv-00068 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 12 of 31 1 2

Administrative Procedure Act 27.

The APA provides for judicial review of final agency actions. “Agency action” is

3

defined to include “the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the

4

equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(13). The APA provides that “[a]

5

person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by

6

agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5

7

U.S.C. § 702.

8 9

28.

Under the APA, a reviewing court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency

action, findings, and conclusions” that it finds to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,

10

or otherwise not in accordance with the law,” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or

11

limitations, or short of statutory right,” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5

12

U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A), (C), (D).

13 14

29.

action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). FACTS

15 16 17

Further, under the APA, a reviewing court has the authority to “compel agency

Background 30.

Neonicotinoid-coated seeds are “pesticide” products under FIFRA because they

18

are a “mixture of substances that are intended to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate a pest.” 7

19

U.S.C. § 136(u)(1). EPA officials have indicated that their current interpretation of 40 CFR

20

§ 152.25(a), the so-called “treated article” exemption, quoted supra, eliminates “all provisions of

21

FIFRA,” thus eviscerates EPA’s power to require registration of neonicotinoid-coated seeds or to

22

mandate or enforce label warnings and use directions on the containers (typically bags) of the

23

coated seeds that are loaded into planting machinery and sown by America’s crop farmers.

24

31.

The systemic nature of neonicotinoid-coated seeds renders them qualitatively and

25

quantitatively different from “treated articles” such that they do not meet the terms of the

26

exemption. Seeds coated with liquid formulations of clothianidin, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid,

27

dinotefuran, acetamiprid, and/or thiacloprid are pesticide delivery devices. The essential purpose

28

of this technology is to carry the active ingredient via the growing plants’ circulatory system into


PAGE 11


every living tissue of the plant, which ultimately is typically thousands of times greater in

2

dimension and mass than the crop seed itself.

3

32.

Further, the dried-on coatings do not, in the vast majority of their uses, protect the

4

seed itself against any disease or other risk to the seed while it is in the bag, the planting

5

machine, or the field. The neonicotinoid ingredients are aimed at protecting the crop plants, later

6

in time, as demonstrated by the EPA-approved labels placed on the bottles/containers of the

7

liquid coating products, of which 31 (of 32) state that the neonicotinoid ingredients are

8

formulated to kill “chewing and sucking insect pests” of the plants, not of the seeds. Moreover,

9

the warnings frequently indicate that the neonicotinoids actually may harm the seeds and result

10

in reduced germination and/or reduction of seed and seedling vigor. (Other non-neonicotinoid

11

active ingredients in the coating liquids may protect the seed itself.)

12

33.

In short, the alleged neonicotinoid “treatment” at issue here is not “for the

13

protection of the article itself”—the seed—as required by 40 CFR § 152.25(a). Thus, “treated

14

seeds” is a misnomer for what are in fact neonicotinoid delivery devices. They are referred in

15

this Complaint as “coated seeds.”

16

34.

Only a small fraction of the active neonicotinoid ingredient that is coated onto a

17

seed actually gets absorbed into the live plant. Depending on the crop, up to 95% is either

18

scraped off the seeds and blown away as dust during machine planting, or sloughed off into the

19

surrounding soil and groundwater. Pervasive use of these chemicals, particularly on corn and

20

soybeans, is resulting in pesticidal treatment of vast areas extending far beyond the planted area

21

of the fields, now including several hundreds of millions of acres in the United States. Pesticidal

22

effects from those scraped and sloughed-off coatings result in the surrounding soil, in blowing

23

dust, in marginal vegetation of all kinds, in honey bees and other pollinators, in surface and

24

groundwater, and in non-target birds and other wildlife far beyond the planted fields.

25

35.

EPA’s interpretation of the “treated article” exemption as applied to neonicotinoid

26

seed coatings has never been stated in a regulation promulgated through APA notice and

27

comment procedures.

28


PAGE 12

Case 3:16-cv-00068 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 14 of 31 36.

1

EPA stated a view on the “treated article” exemption in a 2003 paper issued

2

jointly by EPA and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Canada, Harmonization of

3

Regulation of Pesticide Seed Treatment in Canada and the United States (hereinafter

4

“Harmonization Paper”).1 The Harmonization Paper mentions pesticide-treated seeds, but it

5

provides no coverage or analysis of systemic, neonicotinoid-coated, seeds. Rather than

6

supporting an interpretation that systemic, neonicotinoid-coated seeds properly fit within the

7

“treated article” exemption described in 40 CFR § 152.25(a), the Harmonization Paper instead

8

states that neonicotinoid-coated seeds are excluded from the exemption:

9

The term “for the protection of the [seed] itself” means that the pesticidal protection imparted to the treated seed does not extend beyond the seed itself…

10 11

Id. at 2 (emphasis added).

12

37.

Clear and convincing evidence from across the nation shows that the pesticidal

13

effect of the scraped, blown, and sloughed-off neonicotinoid coatings “extends beyond the seed

14

itself,” and extends far beyond the full-grown plants. Uncontained dust and contamination from

15

these coatings is killing honey bees by the many millions and imposing a potentially catastrophic

16

hazard to aquatic systems across the nation. Both freshwater and marine systems and the

17

invertebrate and vertebrate wildlife—such as fish and waterfowl—that they contain are being

18

harmed. In addition to direct mortality to birds from ingesting neonicotinoid-coated seeds,

19

indirect mortality is resulting from the destruction of rural invertebrate life across a vast portion

20

of the United States. These neonicotinoid delivery devices are planted year after year and the

21

active ingredients have long half-lives in most soils, exceeding the planting intervals. Thus, the

22

contamination has swiftly built up to, and past, harmful levels in America’s lands and waters.

23

38.

The sweeping risks of the systemic insecticides appear to have been unforeseen

24

by the registrants of the neonicotinoid liquid coating products, or by EPA in applying its “treated

25

article” exemption. Blind application of the exemption is in violation of FIFRA and ultra vires

26

and has allowed these unregistered and unlabeled insecticides to outcompete and displace other,

27 28

1

April 11, 2003, pp. 1-2, available at perma.cc/3MUH-B9VQ (last accessed Jan. 5, 2016).


PAGE 13


less-risky, FIFRA-registered insecticides and other crop protection methods in U.S. agricultural

2

markets. Their aggressive marketing has directly led to vastly more use of insecticides on crops

3

for which no insecticides were needed or used by farmers in the years before these products were

4

sold. This prophylactic use of coated seeds is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of

5

Integrated Pest Management. 39.

6

While completely failing to regulate coated seeds themselves, EPA has approved

7

the coating products (the pesticides themselves), see infra Table 1, but in doing so has failed to

8

fully assess the effects of the systemic pesticide beyond the seed coating process. 40.

9

In 2013, EPA publicly issued a new directive to federal and state inspectors and

10

FIFRA enforcement personnel, Guidance for Inspecting Alleged Cases of Pesticide-Related Bee

11

Incidents (2013 Guidance).2 It was issued in response to the numerous 2012-2013 honey bee

12

kills caused by contaminated dust flowing off of neonicotinoid-coated seeds and the planting

13

machines when they are planted. The 2013 Guidance provides a new interpretation of the scope

14

of the “treated article” exemption with respect to coated seeds:

15

Treated seed (and any resulting dust-off from treated seed) may be exempted from registration under FIFRA as a treated article and as such its planting is not considered a “pesticide use.”

16 17

Id. at 7 (emphasis added).

18

41.

The 2013 Guidance directly affects beekeepers and other Plaintiffs in that it states

19

there will not be investigation or enforcement against any of their bee kills or other harm caused

20

by neonicotinoid-coated seeds or resulting contaminated dust because the kills and other harm

21

incidents are “not considered a ‘pesticide use.’” By exempting harmful pesticidal effects from

22

the pesticidal dust, EPA’s investigation and enforcement directive is inconsistent with the

23

“treated article” exemption, which only exempts articles treated “to protect the article or

24

substance itself,” meaning “that the pesticidal protection imparted to the treated seed does not

25

extend beyond the seed itself.” 40 CFR § 152.25(a); Harmonization Paper at 2 (emphasis added).

26

42.

The vast majority of the liquid coating products that are put on the crop seeds at

27 28

2

Available at perma.cc/P5VX-JS6T (last visited Jan. 5, 2016).


PAGE 14


issue were “conditionally registered” under FIFRA, indicating that key information needed for

2

their full risk evaluation was not produced by the registrants at the time of registration. The

3

pervasive risks at the planting stage, which is done by farmers, cannot be effectively protected

4

against by providing label warnings and use directions to the “upstream” seed coating

5

companies. The full scope of harms have been revealed by extensive scientific monitoring and

6

analysis, including an authoritative global review of over 800 published studies conducted under

7

the auspices of the expert International Union for the Conservation of Nature.3

8 9

43.

FIFRA generally prohibits EPA from registering a pesticide if its use would have

“unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” This involves weighing costs versus

10

benefits. A thorough review of the published science on crop yields has shown that the use of

11

neonicotinoid-carrying seeds actually provides no net yield benefit to farmers across the majority

12

of crop-planting contexts in the United States.4 EPA’s own recent comprehensive national

13

“benefits assessment” regarding coated soybean seeds confirmed this.5 Instead they are

14

prophylactically planted despite providing no yield benefits in the large majority of farm

15

contexts. In the process they impose tremendous costs on pollinators, other beneficial

16

invertebrates, aquatic systems, birds, the environment, and the economy.

17

44.

The lack of yield benefits in most cases, and actual yield reductions in many

18

cases, as demonstrated in the scientific literature and other reliable reports, reinforces the

19

experience of Plaintiff farmers Criswell and Fuller. Despite paying for the seed coating

20

protections when purchasing seeds in the past, the farmers’ yields did not benefit; and the

21

beneficial insects in or near their farms and other aspects of their soil health were harmed.

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3

Van der Sluijs J.P., et al., Conclusions of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. (2014), available at perma.cc/7RVA-FMA7. 4

S. Stevens and P. Jenkins, Heavy Costs: Weighing the Value of Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Agriculture. Report by the Center for Food Safety, Washington, D.C. (2014), available at perma.cc/8PMB-LEWU.

5

C. Myers, E. Hill, A. Jones, T. Kiely, and N. Anderson, Benefits of Neonicotinoid Seed Treatments to Soybean Production, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (2014), available at perma.cc/46ZY-CYLP. CASE NO. 3:16-CV-68 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PAGE 15


1

Honey bee kill incidents caused by neonicotinoid-coated seeds have numbered in

2

the hundreds and likely the thousands in recent years. These have likely killed hundreds of

3

millions of individual bees due to acute dust-off kills and chronic damage to bee hives. As a

4

result, for Plaintiff beekeepers Anderson, Adee, and Hackenberg, and other beekeepers

5

represented by Plaintiff Pollinator Stewardship Council, their honey production and the overall

6

profitability of their business have drastically declined, while their workloads and personal stress

7

have multiplied. 46.

8

The costs of neonicotinoid-coated seeds and their resulting contamination include,

9

at a minimum, these foreseeable categories: 1) harmful honey bee colony effects and resulting

10

reduced yields of pollinated crops; 2) reduced production of honey and other bee products; 3)

11

financial harm to beekeepers and consumers; 4) loss of ecosystem services; and 5) market

12

damage from contamination events.6 Estimated, cumulative, direct and indirect costs of this

13

contamination to date across these five categories are in the tens of billions of dollars.

14

47.

The harm to solitary bees, which are essential pollinators, is nationwide and

15

incalculable. Being unmanaged and often living in the contaminated soil, species such as

16

ground-nesting mining bees, alkali bees, squash bees, and long-horned sunflower bees

17

are harmed by repeated and persistent use of neonicotinoid-coated seeds. Adverse impacts to

18

other species of solitary bees that are not ground nesters also has been identified, particularly the

19

high toxicity of neonicotinoids to blue orchard bees and alfalfa leafcutter bees. While blue

20

orchard and leafcutter bees do not nest in the soil, they rely on plant materials and mud for

21

building their brood cells and can be exposed to contamination through those nesting materials

22

and other routes. None of these risks to solitary bees are captured in EPA’s risk assessments for

23

the coating products.

24 25

48.

A recent scientific study from England showed high and unexpected

contamination in honey bee hives resulting from canola seed coating products that came from

26 27 28

6

S. Stevens and P. Jenkins, supra n.4 at 12-15.


PAGE 16


marginal vegetation near the canola fields rather than from the canola pollen itself.7 Honey bees

2

examined in the study were collecting enough neonicotinoids to damage their productivity and

3

reproduction rate. The levels also could harm wild pollinators and other caterpillars and bugs

4

living near arable fields. A recent Canadian study found unexpectedly high levels of

5

neonicotinoids in the surface dust of arable fields and evidence that this dust blows into

6

adjoining fields, contaminating them and putting surface-living beneficial species at risk.8 These

7

studies all point to contamination through pathways that EPA overlooked when it approved

8

coatings for the same crops addressed in the studies.

9

49.

New comprehensive studies document the severe aquatic contamination

10

associated with neonicotinoids, which are water soluble.9 Their rising contamination of fields,

11

puddles, ditches, streams, groundwater, lakes, rivers, and marine areas is now being documented.

12

Researchers across the United States are finding high levels exceeding vital standards set to

13

protect aquatic life. The coatings applied to crop seeds are a primary source of the

14

contamination. EPA’s approvals of the coating products failed to predict, assess, or mitigate this

15

damage to the nation’s waters.

16

50.

The Center for Food Safety report, Water Hazard—Aquatic Contamination by

17

Neonicotinoid Insecticides in the United States, describes widespread ongoing contamination in

18

excess of safe levels, including several studies exceeding benchmark levels set by EPA.10 It

19

documents contamination caused by coated seeds in a wide variety of rural habitats nationwide,

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7

Botias, et al., Neonicotinoid Residues in Wildflowers, a Potential Route of Chronic Exposure for Bees, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (21) pp. 12731–12740 (2015) available at perma.cc/G2PY-UF25.

8

Victor Limay-Rios et al., Neonicotinoid insecticide residues in soil dust and associated parent soil in fields with a history of seed treatment use on crops in Southwestern Ontario, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., Accepted Article (2015), available at perma.cc/4PTA-HQRN.

9

C. A. Morrissey, P. Mineau, J. H. Devries, F. Sanchez-Bayo, M. Liess, M. C. Cavallaro, K. Liber, Neonicotinoid contamination of global surface waters and associated risk to aquatic invertebrates: A review, Environment International 74, 291-303 (2015), available at perma.cc/VPP7-U34W. 10

M. Carnemark, P. Jenkins, and L. Walker, Water Hazard—Aquatic Contamination by Neonicotinoid Insecticides in the United States, Center for Food Safety, Washington, D.C. (2015) available at perma.cc/4BXS-Z8P6.


PAGE 17


typically via pathways that EPA failed to consider adequately when it approved the coating

2

products.

3

51.

New studies document harmful synergistic effects of these seed coatings on the

4

environment, including to honey bees. For example, neonicotinoids combined with existing mite

5

and pathogen infections in honey bees cause greater harm than the infections alone. The same is

6

true of the combination of neonicotinoids and the fungicidal chemicals that are typically coated

7

onto crop seeds (including those treated with neonicotinoids). In addition, resistance is

8

developing among the targeted insect pests to these pesticidal seed coatings. EPA failed to

9

consider these factors as it has applied the “treated article” exemption to the coated seeds.

10

52.

If EPA had followed the FIFRA-mandated registration process for the pesticidal

11

seeds at issue, most or all of them likely would not have been registered, not been heavily

12

advertised and sold, and not inflicted the damages to all of the Plaintiffs that they now inflict.

13

Their use already has been suspended in Europe because of damage to honey bees; and the

14

Provinces of Ontario and Quebec are taking strong measures to reduce their use, after official

15

findings that their vast over-planting was unsustainable and had led to repeated destruction of

16

valuable bee colonies and decimation of Canadian beekeeper livelihoods.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


PAGE 18


1 2

Table 1 indicates unregistered pesticidal crop seeds (with their various coating

products, all of which coatings EPA approved since January 1, 2010):

3 TABLE 1: 4 canola, rapeseed and mustard seed – coated with Prosper Evergol (clothianidin) 5 corn, cotton, sorghum, soybean and sugarbeet seeds – coated with Poncho Votivo/ 6 Poncho 1250 Votivo (clothianidin) 7 cotton seeds – coated with Ernesto Quantum (clothianidin) 8 soybean seeds – coated with Inovate (clothianidin) 9 barley, buckwheat, corn, millet, oats, popcorn, rye, sorghum, teosinte, triticale, 10 wheat, potato seed pieces, carrot, onion bulbs, leek, bunching onion, broccoli seeds – 11 coated with Sepresto 75 WS (clothianidin) 12 barley, oat and wheat seeds – coated with NipsIt Suite Cereals Seed Protectant 13 (clothianidin) 14 sugarbeet, barley, buckwheat, millet, oats, rye, teosinte, triticale and wheat – coated 15 with Poncho/GB126 (clothianidin) 16 canola seeds – coated with Helix Vibrance (thiamethoxam) 17 potato seed pieces – coated with CruiserMAXX Potato Extreme (thiamethoxam) 18 soybean seeds – coated with CruiserMAXX Vibrance, Avicta Complete Beans, SYT0511, 19 and SYT0113 (thiamethoxam) 20 small grain cereal seeds – coated with Cruiser Vibrance Quattro (thiamethoxam) 21 barley and wheat seeds – coated with Dynashield Foothold Virock (imidacloprid) 22 23 54.

24

The number of different crop seeds totals at least twenty-five. They are sold by

25

various seed marketers under a large variety of product line names or numbers that typically, but

26

not always, include the seed coatings. A non-exhaustive sample list includes: 1) Wyffels Hybrid

27

corn lines W1526RIB; W1528RIB; and W1690, shipped coated with Poncho;11 and 2) the

28 11

See perma.cc/9N92-QAC5.


PAGE 19


Pioneer Brand T Series of soybean seeds coated with Pioneer Premium Seed Treatment.12 On

2

information and belief, since January 1, 2010, EPA’s actions and inactions have enabled

3

additional pesticidal crop seeds to be commercialized with no registration beyond those in

4

Table 1; their exemption also is included in this Complaint.

5

55.

Under 7 U.S.C. § 136w(b), the “Administrator may exempt from the requirements

6

of this subchapter by regulation any pesticide which the Administrator determines either (1) to

7

be adequately regulated by another Federal agency, or (2) to be of a character which is

8

unnecessary to be subject to this subchapter in order to carry out the purposes of this

9

subchapter.” (Emphasis added). Here, the Administrator has not issued any regulation exempting

10

either coated seeds generally or neonicotinoid-coated seeds specifically. Nor has the

11

Administrator made any determination that coated seeds are “of a character which is unnecessary

12

to be subject to” FIFRA, including that the use and planting of such seeds will not cause

13

“unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” Id. § 136a(c)(5).

14

56.

Application of the “treated article” exemption to these pesticidal seeds was clearly

15

erroneous, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, ultra vires, in violation of the law and

16

not supported by science.

17

57.

All of the same facts apply to other non-neonicotinoid, systemic seed coating

18

products that EPA has already approved or indicated its intent to approve, including, but not

19

limited to, fipronil, sulfoxaflor, cyantraniloprole, and flupyradifurone. Some of these may not yet

20

have been registered for seed coating use; however, based on EPA’s practices with the

21

neonicotinoids, it is foreseeable EPA will approve them for that additional use. If so approved,

22

they will present essentially the same class of harms to Plaintiffs as do the neonicotinoid-coated

23

seeds.

24

Facts Related to Labels on Neonicotinoid-coated Seed Bags and Tags

25

58.

The labels required by EPA to be placed onto the bags or other containers, or onto

26

the affixed tags, of the unregistered pesticidal seeds include some sparse warnings superficially

27

aimed at protecting pollinators and other environmental values. These amount to admissions of

28 12

See perma.cc/R8X8-FV9A.


PAGE 20


their pesticidal effects. Nevertheless, the language is unenforceable by EPA’s own explicit

2

policies and statements. The language is utterly inadequate to reduce or mitigate the harm caused

3

by contaminated neonicotinoid dust and talc, or treated plants themselves, to honey bees—

4

including those owned by Plaintiff beekeepers—because the labels are for seeds that are not

5

considered to be a “pesticide use.” (see 2013 Guidance, supra). Further, the bag labels are

6

inadequate to protect against the vast spectrum of other environmental and economic impacts,

7

including, but not limited to, damage to soil health and extensive water contamination described

8

herein.

9

59.

As a direct consequence of EPA’s coated seeds exemption, there is no regulation

10

or enforcement against environmental contamination or bee kills caused by the coated seeds by

11

EPA or by its cooperating State Lead Agencies. EPA has instructed enforcement agents that the

12

bag label language is not mandatory. EPA is fully aware of harm occurring to honey bees and the

13

environment as a result. Many such incidents simply go uninvestigated. Even massive colony kill

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

reports may never lead to enforcement of label language on the seed bags because they are not registered pesticides. Plaintiff beekeepers have no incentive to report such kills to the Agency due to the lack of enforcement. EPA’s own policies blind it to the magnitude of the damage. 60.

There are several other defects in the existing bag/tag label language, including,

but not limited to, the omission of adequate warnings about the massive and harmful ongoing surface and groundwater contamination. 61.

FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1), is explicit in stating a pesticidal product, such as

these coated seeds, is misbranded and may not be used if: (F) the labeling accompanying it does not contain directions for use which are necessary for effecting the purpose for which the product is intended and if complied with, together with any requirements imposed under section 136a(d) of this title, are adequate to protect health and the environment; [or] (G) the label does not contain a warning or caution statement which may be necessary and if complied with, together with any requirements imposed under section 136a(d) of this title, is adequate to protect health and the environment.

27 28


PAGE 21


62.

The seed coaters who apply the coatings to the various crop seeds are not the

2

applicators of the pesticidal products; the crop farmers are, including the Plaintiff farmers herein.

3

The farmers are the users who need mandatory label warning and use directions in order to

4

protect the environment. It is arbitrary and capricious for EPA to assume that the seed coaters—

5

applying the liquid coatings mostly in industrial buildings—can be given warnings and use

6

directions adequate to ensure that FIFRA's environmental effects standards will be achieved for

7

the actual pesticidal use of the seeds in the environment.

8 9

63.

Despite prior requests, the Agency has failed to correct its misapplication of the

“treated article” exemption. Plaintiffs do not challenge the language of the exemption in 40 CFR

10

§ 152.25, rather EPA’s misapplication and inconsistent interpretation of that regulation. No

11

agency administrative process exists to rein in EPA’s own ultra vires actions.

12

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

13

EPA’s Rule Exempting Coated Seeds from FIFRA Registration Is Ultra Vires

14 15 16

64.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 63, as

though fully alleged herein. 65.

Pesticide-coated seeds are “pesticides” themselves because they are a “mixture of

17

substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest” 7 U.S.C.

18

§ 136(u)(1). Coating of seeds with neonicotinoids does not protect the seed itself, as required to

19

fit under the “treated article” exemption, at 40 CFR § 152.25(a).

20

66.

The pesticidal effects of neonicotinoid-coated seeds extend in area and time far

21

beyond the seed itself to the entire crop plant. These pesticidal effects contaminate the soil, dust,

22

water, and surrounding vegetation, as well as non-target animals. Extensive bee kills and

23

nationwide water pollution, bird mortalities, and other environmental and economic harms have

24

resulted from the pesticidal dust EPA explicitly exempted. This pesticidal effect—millions of

25

times greater in areal extent than the extent of the pesticidal effect on the seeds themselves—is

26

contrary to the terms of the “treated article” exemption, at 40 CFR § 152.25(a).

27 28

67.

Agency action includes the “whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license,

sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(13). Section


PAGE 22


551(4) of the APA describes a “rule” as “the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or

2

particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or

3

policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.”

4

68.

EPA’s 2013 Guidance includes the Agency’s statement that applies generally to

5

all plantings of pesticide-coated seeds, which describes EPA’s exemption for pesticide-coated

6

seeds and any “dust-off” from the registration requirements of FIFRA. EPA’s coated seed

7

exemption statement in the 2013 Guidance marks the consummation of agency decision-making

8

as to neonicotinoid-coated seeds. Since issuing the 2013 Guidance, EPA has not required FIFRA

9

registration for any neonicotinoid-coated seeds and has given no indication that it intends to do

10 11

so in the future, or that this decision is tentative in nature. 69.

EPA’s exemption statement in the 2013 Guidance affects the rights and

12

obligations of the users of coated seeds and those that are damaged by that use, in that EPA and

13

its inspectors, including state cooperators, will not investigate bee deaths from plantings of

14

neonicotinoid-coated seeds and their toxic dust-off, thus directly harming Plaintiff beekeepers.

15

Further, producers/sellers of the pesticidal seeds are not required to seek registration before the

16

sale of their pesticides and EPA will not impose FIFRA’s registration requirements on them.

17

70.

EPA’s statement in its 2013 Guidance regarding the exemption of

18

pesticide-coated seeds and their “dust-off,” that planting them is “not considered a ‘pesticide

19

use’” under FIFRA, is the equivalent of a rule because it is an “agency statement” of “general

20

applicability” to producers and users of coated seeds with “future effect,” which prescribes the

21

law and/or policy on exemption of coated seeds.

22

71.

EPA’s exemption of coated seeds and their dust as stated in the 2013 Guidance,

23

and its other actions as alleged herein that enabled use of unregulated coated seeds, are

24

sufficiently final agency actions for judicial review.

25

72.

An agency’s power is no greater than that delegated to it by Congress, and the

26

APA requires that courts “shall… hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and

27

conclusions found to be… in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of

28

statutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).


PAGE 23

Case 3:16-cv-00068 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 25 of 31 1 2 3

73.

FIFRA gives EPA no authority to exempt such sweepingly harmful pesticidal

compounds from registration. 74.

Under the FIFRA provision for “[e]xemption of pesticides,” EPA “may exempt

4

from the requirements of this subchapter by regulation any pesticide which the Administrator

5

determines either (1) to be adequately regulated by another Federal agency, or (2) to be of a

6

character which is unnecessary to be subject to this subchapter in order to carry out the purposes

7

of this subchapter.” 7 U.S.C § 136w(b).

8 9

75.

This provision does not give EPA authority to exempt a whole class of pesticides.

It only gives EPA the authority to exempt “any pesticide” if certain criteria are met. Either that

10

pesticide must already be adequately regulated by another federal agency or it must be “of a

11

character which is unnecessary to be subject to” FIFRA. Neither of those criteria applies here.

12

76.

EPA can only approve registration of a pesticide if it “will not generally cause

13

unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” when used in accordance with widespread and

14

commonly recognized practice. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5). However, neonicotinoid-coated seeds do

15

have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, as alleged herein. EPA has no authority to

16

exempt this whole class of pesticides from FIFRA requirements in view of their unreasonable

17

adverse effects.

18

77.

Additionally, 7 U.S.C § 136w(b) specifically commands that if EPA is to exempt

19

any pesticide, such as coated seeds, it must make the requisite “determination” that the pesticide

20

is not of a character that must be regulated; that is, it will not have an unreasonable adverse

21

effect on the environment. Nevertheless, EPA has failed to make that required determination for

22

any of the seeds herein.

23

78.

In sum, EPA’s exemption for coated seeds goes beyond the Agency’s authority

24

under FIFRA because EPA does not have authority to exempt a whole harmful class of

25

pesticides and EPA failed to make any adequate determination that the use of coated seeds does

26

not have an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. EPA’s exemption is therefore ultra

27

vires and invalid.

28


PAGE 24


79.

EPA’s actions and inactions have allowed distribution, sale, and use of numerous

2

pesticidal seeds planted on over 150 million acres nationally, which are causing ongoing

3

unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and the economy; including, but not limited to,

4

extensive soil and water contamination, thereby harming all of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff beekeepers

5

are suffering excessive bee kills and severe ongoing economic and personal damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

6 7

EPA’s Failure to Regulate and Enforce Against the Entire Class of Pesticidal Neonicotinoid-Coated Seeds under FIFRA Is Unlawful

8 9 10 11

80.



Under FIFRA, “no person in any State may distribute or sell to any person any

12

pesticide that is not registered” pursuant to FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). EPA has the authority to

13

enforce registration requirements and to prevent sales of misbranded pesticides. Id. §§ 136a(a),

14

136k(a), 136l, 136w(a)(1), 136(q). EPA also has the authority to register pesticides, but only if

15

they will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment when used in

16

accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5). Finally,

17

EPA has the authority to exempt a pesticide from FIFRA requirements, but only if certain criteria

18

are met. 7 U.S.C. § 136w(b). As such, FIFRA and its regulations provide a meaningful standard

19

against which to judge EPA’s exercise of its enforcement discretion.

20

82.

EPA has categorically failed to enforce any FIFRA requirements against

21

neonicotinoid-coated seeds, an entire class of pesticides representing likely 150 million acres of

22

use nationwide. EPA’s non-enforcement policy is embodied in its 2013 Guidance where it states

23

that planting of coated seeds, as well as their resulting toxic “dust-off,” are “not considered a

24

‘pesticide use.’” 2013 Guidance at 7. EPA’s policy of non-enforcement can also be seen in

25

practice, through the scores of coated seed products available in the marketplace that are

26

unregistered. See Table 1, supra.

27 28

83.

EPA’s policy choice to not regulate this entire class of conduct (the sale, labeling,

and planting of neonicotinoid-coated seeds) has nothing to do with individual non-enforcement


PAGE 25


decisions. Instead, EPA has a broad policy of exemption of these products from FIFRA, which

2

amounts to an abdication of the Agency’s statutory responsibilities. EPA’s announcement of this

3

policy in the 2013 Guidance, as well as by its other actions described herein, provide focal points

4

for judicial review.

5

84.

EPA’s inactions and policy of non-enforcement are causing ongoing unreasonable

6

adverse effects on the environment and the economy; including, but not limited to, extensive soil

7

and water contamination, thereby harming all of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff beekeepers are suffering

8

excessive bee kills and severe ongoing economic and personal damages.

9

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

10

EPA’s Rule Exempting Coated Seeds from FIFRA Is Invalid for Failure to Comply with APA § 553 Rulemaking Procedures

11 12 13 14

85.



EPA’s coated seed exemption is a “rule” as alleged above in paragraphs 67-71.

15

For legislative or substantive rules, the APA requires certain procedures (including notice and

16

comment). 5 U.S.C. § 553.

17

87.

EPA’s coated seed exemption effectively amends and/or is inconsistent with the

18

“treated article” exemption, 40 C.F.R. § 152.25(a)—which expressly applies only to articles

19

treated with pesticides “to protect the article or substance itself”—as EPA’s coated seed

20

exemption includes “dust-off” from the seeds, which causes clear pesticidal effects beyond the

21

seeds themselves.

22

88.

EPA’s coated seed exemption significantly affects the rights and interests of those

23

who plant coated seeds and those who are impacted by those plantings, and departs from the

24

existing practice of and requirement for considering articles that have pesticidal effects beyond

25

themselves to be pesticides.

26

89.

EPA has, in practice, treated the coated seeds exemption as binding, and has not

27

regulated coated seed products, consistent with its statement in the 2013 Guidance that coated

28

seed plantings are not pesticide use.


PAGE 26

Case 3:16-cv-00068 Document 1 Filed 01/06/16 Page 28 of 31 1 2 3

90.

Consequently, the 2013 Guidance and EPA’s coated seed exemption therein

amount to a legislative rule subject to APA rulemaking procedures. 5. U.S.C. § 553. 91.

EPA did not follow APA rulemaking procedures (including notice by publication

4

in the Federal Register and opportunity for public comment) when it issued the 2013 Guidance

5

containing EPA’s statement of exemption from FIFRA for pesticide-coated seeds and their toxic

6

dust. Because EPA issued the 2013 Guidance with the exemption rule without going through

7

APA § 553 rulemaking procedures, EPA’s actions are invalid.

8 9

92.

EPA’s actions and inactions have allowed distribution, sale, and use of numerous

pesticidal seeds planted on close to 150 million acres nationally and are causing ongoing

10

unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and the economy; including, but not limited to,

11

extensive soil and water contamination, thereby harming all of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff beekeepers

12

are suffering excessive bee kills and severe ongoing economic and personal damages.

13

FOURTH CLAIM

14

Application of the “Treated Article” Exemption to Neonicotinoid-coated Seeds Is Arbitrary and Capricious and Violates FIFRA and the APA

15 16 17 18

93.



All of the coated crop seed products listed in Table 1, supra, fall outside the

19

“treated article” exemption in 40 CFR § 152.25(a). EPA improperly granted them exemptions

20

from FIFRA regulation.

21

95.

The full environmental risks of the coated seeds have not been addressed by EPA

22

at the upstream stage of registering the liquid coatings, as would be necessary for the seeds in

23

Table 1 to fit within the exemption. Also, EPA required labels for bags and tags of each of those

24

coated crop seeds with purported warnings for the farmers planting them, including Plaintiff

25

farmers here. EPA approved those labels at the same time the Agency was fully aware that the

26

bag/tag warnings were inadequate, non-mandatory, and unenforceable.

27 28

96.

EPA’s new interpretation of the exemption as to coated seeds and “resulting

dust-off” in its 2013 Guidance is inconsistent with and violates its own interpretation in the


PAGE 27


Harmonization Paper, which expressly stated that the exemption was limited to instances where

2

the coating was “‘for the protection of the [seed] itself’ [which] means that the pesticidal

3

protection imparted to the treated seed does not extend beyond the seed itself.” (Emphasis

4

added).

5

97.

EPA’s exemption of the neonicotinoid-coated seeds is inconsistent with its

6

non-exemption of anti-fouling boat paint, anti-microbial products, and other similar articles that

7

cause pesticidal effects beyond the treated article itself.

8 9 10 11

98.

EPA’s inconsistent misapplication of the “treated article” exemption and other

actions allowed the distribution, sale, and use of unregistered pesticidal products in violation of FIFRA’s registration requirements. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). 99.

In addition, for all the unregistered pesticidal seeds in Table 1, EPA did not

12

announce a “notice of receipt of application” or a “notice of issuance” in the Federal Register, in

13

violation of FIFRA and its implementing regulations. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(4); 40 C.F.R.

14

§ 152.102.

15

100.

EPA’s failure to register the pesticidal seeds or to publish Federal Register notices

16

for them denied the Plaintiffs essential information and denied them FIFRA-required public

17

comment opportunities. EPA denied Plaintiffs and the public the ability to submit information in

18

response to the required notices that may have convinced the Agency not to allow the use of

19

those coated seeds in the first instance, or to cancel or re-classify them after they were allowed.

20

Further, EPA denied Plaintiff beekeepers and farmers knowledge that may have allowed them to

21

avoid some of the harmful effects of the coated seed products as applied in the field.

22

101.

EPA’s application of the “treated article” exemption to these coated seed products

23

was plainly erroneous, inconsistent, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and

24

otherwise violated FIFRA, its implementing regulations, and the APA.

25

102.

Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief, that other neonicotinoid-coated and

26

non-neonicotinoid-coated seeds bear the same legal defects as those specified herein in Table 1.

27

This Complaint and all of its Claims applies to all such crop seeds.

28


PAGE 28


103.

EPA’s actions and inactions are causing ongoing unreasonable adverse effects on

2

the environment and the economy; including, but not limited to, extensive soil and water

3

contamination, thereby harming all of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff beekeepers are suffering excessive

4

bee kills and severe ongoing economic and personal damages.

5

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

6 7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully seek an Order of this Court: 1.

registration is ultra vires and contrary to law;

8 9

Declaring that EPA’s action of exempting the pesticidal coated seeds from FIFRA

2.

Declaring that the unregistered seeds for all of the at least twenty-five different

10

crops coated with neonicotinoids, as per Table 1, supra, and all other crop seeds

11

similarly situated, do not fit within the “treated article” exemption from pesticide

12

regulation in 40 CFR § 152.25(a) and must be regulated as pesticidal products

13

under FIFRA;

14

3.

of any crops;

15 16

Enjoining EPA from allowing any new unregistered neonicotinoid-coated seeds

4.

Enjoining EPA from allowing any new unregistered seeds of any crops if they are

17

coated with other systemic insecticides that cause pesticidal effects extending

18

beyond the coated seed and plant itself;

19

5.

fees and expert witness fees; and

20 21

Awarding Plaintiffs the costs of this litigation, including reasonable attorneys’

6.

Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

22 23 24 25 26 27 28


PAGE 29


Respectfully submitted this 6th day of January, 2016 in San Francisco, California.

2 3 4 5 6

/s/ Adam Keats Adam Keats (CSB No. 191157) Center for Food Safety 303 Sacramento Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 826-2270 / F: (415) 826-0507 Email: [email protected]

7 Counsel for Plaintiffs 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


PAGE 30